DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Guilty Pleasures: Superman III

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's our Scott McKenzie in shorts and tights...

Scott McKenzie, you stand before me again accused of enjoying a movie that may or may not be a crime against the world of film. This time I must ask the good people to decide whether Superman III is an innocent or guilty pleasure.

Prosecution

Let me begin by stating an irrefutable fact: Superman III does not exist. It does not exist because the events contained in the movie were removed from the screen canon of Superman with the release of 2006’s Superman Returns. Just as Highlander II was quickly removed from the memory of the general public with the release of subsequent sequels, the same was done for this movie and its partner in crime, Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. Any attempts to resurrect this fossil are futile for the sole reason that Superman III sucks and I’m going to tell you why.

Exhibit A: The funniest man in the world (in 1983)

I’ll start at the beginning. Instead of flying through the depths of space with titles whizzing past the audience, we are introduced to the true intended star of Superman III: Richard Pryor (exhibit A). The Salkinds insisted on a comedy theme and roped in the biggest stand-up comedian of the time, but by doing so heaped far too much pressure on their new star, which did nothing for the emotional state of a man who was not well-known for his mental stability. They had already flexed their collective might by getting rid of Richard Donner from the first Superman sequel, and effectively cut Margot Kidder out of the second after she voiced her disgust at their actions.

Exhibit B: Superman or Charlie Chaplin?

Following the introduction of Gus Gorman, we’re then treated to a rehearsed slapstick sequence (exhibit B) instead of the impressive credits we expect, nay deserve, from a Superman movie. Throughout the movie, the comedy is pitched far too broad, often venturing into spoof territory. In one particular montage that is nothing more than a collection of badly-written skits, the red and green men on a crossing signal start to fight each other. Surely only Superman and anything or anyone else from Krypton are supposed to be the supernatural elements in the stories, not any old nonsense that suits the writers for the sake of a cheap laugh? I mean, there’s no way Gus Gorman could ski off the top of a building and land on the street below without a scratch, and when he does it makes a mockery of the peril Lois Lane finds herself in before she meets Superman in the first movie.

Of all the Superman movies, number three has aged the worst. The reason for this is its secondary theme: computers. Following his failed attempts to exist on state benefits, Gus Gorman somehow turns into a computer programming genius. The only problem with including computer technology in any movie is that it badly dates that movie. How could we believe that the Superman that returns to Earth after going looking for Krypton could have been gone for any less than twenty years if Superman III was to remain a credible inclusion in the series?

Exhibit C: Comb your hair, you naughty Superman!

My learned friend for the defence will no doubt dazzle you with tales of how Superman III is the movie with the darkest moments, that it was originally supposed to be called Superman vs. Superman. I’m willing to concede that the fight between Superman and his evil alter-ego is a refreshing twist, but in the same way that one spray of air freshener doesn’t hold back a pungent smell, one decent scene doesn’t stop Superman III stinking either. Even when he stops being a goody-goody, the filmmakers still milk it for cheap laughs, whether he’s stopping the leaning tower of Pisa from leaning or blowing out the Olympic torch, and the only way they could think of making Christopher Reeve look evil was to make his suit a bit darker and ruffle his hair (exhibit C).

I will leave the ladies and gentlemen of the jury with a clip that shows them how the opening credits of Superman III could, nay should, have looked (exhibit D) and allow them to dream of what could have been if only the producers had decided to make a movie half as good as the first two entries in the series.

Exhibit D: What could have been

Defence

I’m afraid that my colleague for the prosecution could not be more wrong. I’ll admit that Superman III is no classic by any means, but it is an adequate addition to the series and does not deserve to be excluded from the Superman canon. For starters, it is the first Superman movie that Christopher Reeve received top billing for and contains one of his strongest performances. In addition to playing the dual roles of Superman and Clark Kent, he is asked to play the third role of Evil Superman. Through his performance, we get to see his wide acting range that goes from slapstick comedy, sensitivity and heroism through to arrogance and self-doubt.

Exhibit E: Combine harvester rescue

Superman III also contains set-pieces so memorable that they cannot be removed from the minds of fans, no matter how much the prosecution pushes for a guilty verdict. Rescuing Ricky from certain death in the jaws of a combine harvester (exhibit E), being chased by missiles through the Grand Canyon, Gus Gorman embezzling half-cents and the junkyard fight are scenes that stick in the mind long after the credits have rolled. Lest we forget the moment where Vera Webster is caught in the supercomputer during the climactic scene and is turned into a half-human half-robot monster (exhibit F), which gave countless children nightmares throughout the 80s.

Exhibit F: Don’t worry, it’s only a movie

I’d like to reiterate the prosecution’s point about how the filmmakers made Superman look evil. Yes, he is dressed in a dark suit with ruffled hair, but is that any different from the techniques used to make Peter Parker look evil in Spider-Man 3? I would therefore ask that if the jury are willing to find this movie guilty, they must also do the same for Sam Raimi’s movie.

Prosecution: Objection! Judge: Sustained, although the prosecution makes a good point.

Superman III is also notable because we get to see Clark Kent of the present day spend time in his home town of Smallville. The relationship he shares with Lana Lang is at the core of the movie and works well, and Annette O’Toole was a logical addition to the cast of the Smallville TV series. Yes, Lex Luthor is missing but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Even though Superman may be the greatest comic-book superhero, his selection of nemeses isn’t as wide as Batman or Spider-Man and it’s good to see him go up against someone else, even if it is Robert Vaughan and Mrs Billy Connolly.

I will leave the ladies and gentlemen of the jury with a clip that shows just how dark and compelling this movie is (exhibit G) and ask them to consider the following fact: at least it’s not as bad as Superman IV!

Prosecution: Objection! Judge: Sustained. The jury is instructed to disregard the defence’s last comment. Superman III is the only movie on trial here. Superman IV was already found guilty a long time ago and has no relevance on this trial.

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

While Superman III isn't the best of the series (that distinction goes to Superman I. Returns suck only for the reasons that Brandon Routh is a horrible Clark Kent/Superman and Kevin Spacey play Lex Luthor way too evil compared to Gene Hackman.), but III is still an alright movie. There were moments (the fighting crosing sign men, for one) that were a bit useless, but the good Clark Kent vs. Evil Superman scenes were great....the highlight of the movie. The end scenes where Superman fights the super computer sends you right back to the awesome cartoons of the '40s ! So, while not being the best of the series, III is hardly a horrible movie. IV would have to take that title.

Quote: I’d like to reiterate the prosecution’s point about how the filmmakers made Superman look evil. Yes, he is dressed in a dark suit with ruffled hair, but is that any different from the techniques used to make Peter Parker look evil in Spider-Man 3? I would therefore ask that if the jury are willing to find this movie guilty, they must also do the same for Sam Raimi’s movie.

...Wouldn't that be the joke the Raimi brothers were trying to make? I think a lot of folks misread that scene in Spider-Man 3.

Supergirl shouldn't exist, she's just a pointless invention for equality because most superheroes are male. For every superhero there's a female version and are not needed. Why don't they create Superman's little brother whilst they're at it?

I agree supes78. I definitely vote guilty on this one. I hope the next film or the one after that gives us a proper introduction to Linda Lee Daneveres/Kara Zor-El/Supergirl (or Superwoman), so we can eliminate Supergirl from the cannon as well as Supermans III and IV.

I thought "Superman The Movie", "Superman II" and "Superman Returns" were terrific films - - wonderfully cast, great special effects and a whole lotta fun. "Superman IV" was a complete disaster - - mainly because it was so incoherent due to extreme editing and poor special effects. "Superman III" falls somewhere in the middle - - it is nowhere near as good as the first 3 films mentioned, but it's leaps and bounds (pardon the pun) ahead of #4. There are some great parts to it - - the special effects, Lana Lang, Good/Evil Superman. The villains, particularly Richard Pryor, bring the whole thing crashing down. I was never a Richard Pryor fan to begin with. Regardless, he had no business being in a "Superman" film. Believe it or not, while the film was not a critical success, it was a box office hit (tho' not like the first two). Such a shame, considering how good #1 and #2 were (and still are).

This movie was so bizarre...it really wasn't a Superman movie...it was a Richard Pryor movie guest starring Superman...it has it's moments, but it was so mishandled by the whole creative team that it leaves a scar on the Superman mythos...

Chris Reeve brought his A-game to all 4 films. However, Supes 3 was just down right pitiful. When I watch it today and see that Charlie Chaplin slapstick opening credit scene I cringe. People want to talk about how Episode I was a monumental let down for some fans. HAH! That was a little indigestion compared to the kick in the family jewels fans received when this pile came out after we were treated to Supes 1 and 2.

Say what you will about the last couple of Superman movies, but Chris Reeve was the only consistently great ingredient in all of them. SIII's great scenes where the evil Supes fights the good one are my favorite in all of the Superman films. It's too bad they couldn't craft a whole story around the doppleganger.

The 'Robot Lady' was great, because she scared the hell out of my little brother. He'd have to leave the room and then we'd have to tell him when she was gone. Of course, my sister and I would just pause the movie, tell him it was over, then press 'PLAY' the minute he walked back in. Cue the screaming and the crying. We went to the well on that joke dozens of times... and he never seemed to figure out we were jerks. Sigh.

That said, based on the evidence provided, this film is GUILTY. The laughs (the fact that they just heap them on) just seem so out of character for the series. It's guilty, but it's really close.

Superman Returns is by far the best in the series. Superman 3 has some redeeming factors, but was spoilt by silly humour and evil computers. Superman gets drunk too and I thought alcohol didn't effect him. Superman 4 is just awful, very badly cut, poor production values. Don't talk about what could have been, talk about what it was and that was a mistake of a film.

The few fleeting moments of enjoyment I received from the movie (defense is right, there are a few) were surrounded by too much dreck to consider this canon. I would not call this film unwatchable, however, and take a rather middle of the road stance on it.

Incidentally, I don't think II is canon in Singer's universe either. The relationship established between Supes and Lois doesn't fit with either version of II. If, in the Donner Version, they turn the world back, then they never had a relationship at all, and if the super kiss of Lester's film is used, then Lois never remembers any relationship at all, which she clearly does in Returns.

Blue-Kal-El wrote: SIV is a very highly entertaining movie, that given the right budget and production values, could've been a very successful movie blah blah blah blah

This seems to be representative of several people on these boards and I gotta say---you can't, being of sound mind, compliment something by saying "well if it didn't have horrible acting, a low budget, a c**ppy director, and a lousy production team, it would have been good".

As the article's title points out, this film is a terrific guilty pleasure. And it does contain a number of memorable set pieces- so much so that people still discuss them nearly 25 years later. I've yet to meet someone in the real world who actually wants to discuss Superman Returns just one year later. If anything is in danger of becoming forgotten canon, it's little Kal El jr. himself, Jason White. The studio doesn't even seem too interested in continuing his story with a sequel. Both films failed to live up to their potential, imo, but I'll take an evil Superman over one who's reduced to Lois' gal pal any day of the week.

As much as I like Superman in general, III is just horrendous. It ruins everything, and I hated the fact that Superman actually killed someone. Sure it was his evil self, but he never does that!!!!!! As for IV, Gene Hackman alone puts it over III (but the effects are still cheap) and "Superman Returns" was too much of a soap opera for me to like. I hope the next one is better.

Wilson Bros wrote: We disagree about III being better than IV. At least IV had noble intentions, even if Cannon diverted much of the allocated budget into some of their own projects, giving Superman IV a second-rate look.

Superman III was played strictly for laughs; the Salkinds, Spengler & Lester obviously spurred on to make a movie for the kind of idiots who laughed like drains at the "funny" moments involving Non in Lester's take on Superman II.

If Superman IV hadn't have been produced by Golan & Globus and had been afforded the production values of III (and hadn't have been mutilated in post-production), then it's quite likely that it might have been a movie that would have compared favourably to the first two movies in the series.

Ultimately, we'd rather sit through the well-intentioned heroic failure of IV, than the slapstick mess of III.

SIII is by far the worst movie; the only good things are Lana Lang (Smallville) and the 'evil' Superman.

SIV is a very highly entertaining movie, that given the right budget and production values, could've been a very successful movie. I specially enjoy the 'double-date' with Lois and the paper girl; if only the extended cut was available...

I would sooner watch "Ballistic: Ecks Vs. Sever" (the movie at the top of my "Worst Movies of All Time" list) straight for 24 hours rather than watch "Superman III" ever again. Hadn't thought of "Superman III" in a while, and now that you've made me think of it...

i can`t judge fairly because this is the first superman movie i saw as a kid and thus it holds a special and biased place...sure it hasnt aged well and all the negatives everyone has said are more or less true but yeah...its my first so i cant put it down fairly..lol

Matt wrote: "This is no fantasy - no careless product of wild imagination. No, my friends. These indictments that Scott has brought to you today, specific charges herein against Superman III. Its acts of treason, its ultimate aim of sedition. These...are matters of undeniable fact. I ask you now to pronounce judgement on those accused."

"This is no fantasy - no careless product of wild imagination. No, my friends. These indictments that Scott has brought to you today, specific charges herein against Superman III. Its acts of treason, its ultimate aim of sedition. These...are matters of undeniable fact. I ask you now to pronounce judgement on those accused."

We disagree about III being better than IV. At least IV had noble intentions, even if Cannon diverted much of the allocated budget into some of their own projects, giving Superman IV a second-rate look.

Superman III was played strictly for laughs; the Salkinds, Spengler & Lester obviously spurred on to make a movie for the kind of idiots who laughed like drains at the "funny" moments involving Non in Lester's take on Superman II.

If Superman IV hadn't have been produced by Golan & Globus and had been afforded the production values of III (and hadn't have been mutilated in post-production), then it's quite likely that it might have been a movie that would have compared favourably to the first two movies in the series.

Ultimately, we'd rather sit through the well-intentioned heroic failure of IV, than the slapstick mess of III.

I have to admit that as far as Supes III and Supes IV are concerned, they're both examples of the ineptitude of the Salkinds and the writers. But....Supes IV is much, much worse. Supes III had its moments here and there; the time in Smallville, the "evil Superman" stuff, and so on. I can't say that Supes IV had ANY moments that redeem it from being 100% horse feces.

In the worlds of the Kryptonian elders at the beginning of the first film: guilty! This hasn't aged well, but is much better than four.

Not really sure about all the politics involved with this series, especially with respect to Donner. The content of the recent boxed set paints a different picture and I'm not sure that the Salkinds were entirely to blame for what happened.